Contreras v. Yates

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING 1 COMPLAINT, Without Prejudice, For Failure to Exhaust Prior to Filing Suit, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/5/2009. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 A.J.YATES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Ruben Contreras is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. / (Doc. 1) v. RUBEN CONTRERAS, Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING SUIT CASE NO. 1:08-CV-0001831-SMS PC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18 Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 1, 2008. 19 Plaintiff concedes that he has not exhausted the inmate appeal process but contends that

20 delaying this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will cause irreparable harm and potentially violate his 21 14th Amendment right of due process. Plaintiff is pursuing injunctive relief against a transfer to an 22 out-of-state prison. 23 Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), "[n]o action shall be

24 brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a 25 prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 26 remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Accordingly, prisoners are 27 required to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 28 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). "A prisoner's 1

1 concession to nonexhaustion is valid grounds for dismissal . . . ." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 2 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). 3 To satisfy § 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use the available process to

4 exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); McKinney, 311 5 F.3d at 1199-1201. "[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims 6 cannot be brought in court." Jones, 549 U.S. at 211, citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 7 (2002). 8 The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter, 534

9 U.S. at 532. Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless 10 of the relief offered by the process. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Exhaustion of 11 prison grievance procedures is now mandatory, even if the procedures do not meet federal 12 standards and even if they are not "plain, speedy, and effective." Porter, 534 U.S. at 524, quoting 13 Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n. 5. 14 15 Conclusion and Order Although the PLRA requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing

16 suit, Plaintiff concedes that he failed to do so. Neither Plaintiff's potential constitutional claim 17 nor his pursuit of injunctive relief excuse Plaintiff from the exhaustion requirement. Accordingly, 18 the Court HEREBY ORDERS dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust 19 prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: icido3 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 October 5, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE